Schedule 1
Political Parties and Elections Bill
6:00 pm
David Howarth (Shadow Solicitor General, Ministry of Justice; Cambridge, Liberal Democrat)
The Electoral Commission’s view is that it requires regulatory power over at least some regulated donees. I notice that the provision is about donees rather than donors—the people receiving the money, not the people giving it.
Regulated donees are defined in the 2000 Act as members of a registered party, a members’ association or
“the holder of a relevant elective office”.
The particular group that the Electoral Commission believes it needs regulatory power over is the middle one, the members’ association. Under the current law, a members’ association is defined as
“any organisation whose membership consists wholly or mainly of members of a registered party, other than”
something that is a party itself.
There is a requirement to regulate registered donees and to have access to their papers because otherwise it would be easy for sub-groups within parties to be set up in such a way as to evade regulation. It is perfectly reasonable for the Bill to extend the basic way in which regulation happens to members’ associations. It was implied in the comments of the Electoral Commission that the Government must answer why it is also necessary to extend the same powers to individual members of parties or individuals who hold elected office.
In fact, those two cases might be different. There might be an argument for the third category: those of us in the House, for example, who are holders of elected office. I shall not refer to particular media items, but it might be possible for donations to parties to take a route to an individual hon. Member for help in his office or such matters. They might otherwise have gone to the party, so perhaps there is a case to answer in such instances. However, I am worried about the extension of the powers to individual party members, which was the strongest point made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon.
Unfortunately, the amendment would go far too far. Under existing law, there is power to require documents from registered donees. The Bill adds powers of entry, which is what is worrying several people. The problem is that, under the existing law, powers to require documents and powers of entry are treated separately. The Bill puts them together.
Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman’s amendment would not only prevent the extension of the law, but take the law away from where it is and reduce the power of the commission over requiring documents. We should not do that. It raises the matter that the commission mentioned, in that the issue should be approached not through entering people’s premises on a warrant or on the say so of the regulator, but by going instead down the route that it proposed of treating the whole thing as a civil matter, whereby the commission goes to the court and asks for an order requiring documents be produced.
It was proposed that if the requirement was not obeyed, at that point—as a remedy for the failure to comply—the court could either hold the object of the law in contempt or further authorise a search. There needs to be some regulation; there seems to be over-inclusiveness in the schedule’s drafting. I ask the Government to look at the matter again—not how the amendment proposes, but more subtly than that.